Vanessa Walilko 对 AI 公司处理使用者资料的方式、产业对环境的冲击，以及这些工具侵蚀人类创造力深感忧虑，并坦言自己「对使用 AI 的人非常、非常愤怒」。她的一位朋友不断传送 AI 生成的迷你牛影片并坚称是真的，令她极为恼火；她的表亲则将已故祖父母的照片制成 AI 动画，她形容这是「操弄遗体的傀儡戏」，并表示此事件「绝对」损害了两人的关系。约会应用程式 Hily 针对美国 3,500 名年轻人所做的调查显示，64% 的 Z 世代与 56% 的千禧世代交友者表示不愿与在日常决策中依赖 AI 的人约会。
研究者指出，这些争议可能反映出比新技术磨合期更深层的分歧：AI 正在依据人们对未来愿景的不同价值观将社会划分开来，进而使人际关系趋于复杂。Carnegie Mellon University 伦理学教授 Derek Leben 认为，最明显的社会效应是「猜疑」——朋友们开始怀疑电子邮件、简讯甚至婚礼誓词是否真正出自本人之手。时装设计师 Victoria Carina 批评人们将 ChatGPT 当作真实人际连结的替代品；在气候非营利组织工作的 Patrick Galey 则指出，AI 在职场中日益变成强制性任务，「这是作业，不是加分题」。
随著 AI 更深入地渗透日常生活，这些分歧可能持续扩大。社会组织心理学家 Jeremy Pollack 专攻冲突解决研究，他认为拒绝使用 AI 能在技术环境令人不知所措时恢复「自主感与道德清晰度」。宣称「我是不用 AI 的人」正逐渐成为一种身分信号——既表达了自己是谁，也愈来愈多地表明自己不愿成为什么样的人。Carla Milan 等反对者的异议涵盖隐私、环境成本到人际真实性等个人与社会层面，凸显出 AI 采用与否已从技术选择演变为价值认同的表态。
Vanessa Walilko is deeply concerned about how AI companies handle user data, the industry's environmental impact, and the erosion of human creativity, admitting she "gets really, really mad at people who use it." One friend kept sending her AI-generated videos of miniaturized cows, insisting they were real, which she found infuriating; her cousin animated a photograph of their late grandparents with AI, an act she described as "marionetting their corpses," a dispute that has "absolutely" strained their relationship. A survey of 3,500 young people in the US by dating app Hily found that 64% of Gen Z and 56% of millennial daters said they would not date someone who relies on AI for everyday decisions.
Researchers suggest these disputes may reflect something deeper than the growing pains of a new technology: AI is dividing people according to differing values about what kind of future they want, complicating relationships in the process. Derek Leben, an ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, identifies the most obvious social effect as "suspicion" — friends now wonder whether emails, texts, and even wedding vows were truly written by the people who sent them. Fashion designer Victoria Carina criticizes people for treating ChatGPT as a substitute for real human connection, while Patrick Galey, who works at a climate nonprofit, notes that AI is increasingly compulsory at work — "it's being messaged as homework — not extra credit."
As AI becomes more deeply woven into everyday life, these divides may only widen. Social-organizational psychologist Jeremy Pollack, who studies conflict resolution, argues that refusing AI can restore "a sense of agency and moral clarity" when the technological landscape feels overwhelming. Declaring "I'm someone who doesn't use AI" is increasingly becoming an identity signal — expressing both who one is and, crucially, who one does not want to be. The objections of holdouts like Carla Milan span privacy, environmental costs, and interpersonal authenticity, underscoring that AI adoption has evolved from a technological choice into a statement of values.